When pigs fly: Citizens at the centre of integrated urban water … · 2013-04-12 · Citizens at the Centre of Integrated Urban Water Management 4 household demand revealed that

When pigs fly:

Citizens at the centre of

integrated urban water management A report on Rainbow Drive Layout’s efforts towards water sustainability

By

Biome Environmental Solutions Pvt Ltd 1022, 1st Floor, 6th Block, HMT Layout

Vidyaranyapura Main Road,

Vidyaranyapura,

Bangalore - 560 097

Facilitated by

Rainbow Drive Plot Owners Association

Rainbow Drive Layout,

Sarjapur Road,

Bangalore

With support from

The Arghyam Foundation

Office address: ARGHYAM #599, 12th Main,Indiranagar,HAL 2nd

Stage, Bangalore, Karnataka, India, Pin-560008

Email: [email protected] Phone: +91 (080) 41698941/42; Fax: +91

(080) 41698943

Citizens at the Centre of Integrated Urban Water Management

Foreword: Citizens at the centre of integrated urban water management

The challenge of water governance in India today cannot be overemphasized. The Urban regions in India are growing and with it, urban water demand. Across cities and towns in India water governance is becoming a subject of debate. While investments in water infrastructure and institutional models of service delivery are being debated, cities continue to suffer water shortages and have increasing wastewater management issues. People of the city have responded to this situation on their own – various coping strategies have emerged and urban water markets are growing.

Bangalore is a particularly telling case of such a situation. The single largest coping strategy of people in Bangalore has been recourse to groundwater. With a political and ecological limit to what Bangalore can source from the River Kaveri, its current primary water source, the search for an alternative paradigm of urban water management is of paramount importance for Bangalore. The story that this report tells, that of a private gated layout in Bangalore called Rainbow Drive, perhaps has many lessons to teach. Above all it is a story that demonstrates that citizens and communities can become the centre of urban water management. Rainbow Drive can be interpreted as a story of how “coping strategies” – when adopted by a water literate citizenry with a sense of responsibility – has the potential to contribute positively to urban water management. The most important contribution this story makes is the larger questions it raises about urban water management for Bangalore.

• Are the “coping strategies” of Bangalore indeed the mainstream of its supply today with the formal institutional supply model a supplementary source? Does the scale of private investment in “coping strategies” far exceed public investment?

• Is there a paradigm where these coping strategies can result in a positive contribution to integrated urban water management?

• Is a water literate citizenry critical to achieve this? What is the role of communication for water literacy? How does one communicate to the citizenry to achieve water literacy?

• How does one leverage the sense of larger good and sense of collective responsibility in the citizenry? How does one harness local leadership?

• How should knowledge of geology and hydrogeology be brought to bear at the level of the citizen who uses groundwater?

• In Bangalore, does groundwater present a more economic source of water – both in financial and energy terms?

• Does groundwater also provide an opportunity to leverage private investment for public good?

• How critical is the role of good administration for water management – an administration that can measure and quantify water fluxes?

• What are the legal and institutional frameworks to achieve the above? Can our current institutions respond to the situation and function in this paradigm?

• How does one embed such a new paradigm into the overall system of governance in Bangalore and our nation?


1

Credits

Report authored by

Avinash Krishnamurthy

Nathan Stell

Shubha Ramachandran

Karan Singh

MS Sunil

With mentoring from

S. Vishwanath

Special thanks to

Jayawanth Bharadwaj

Members of the Rainbow Drive Plot Owners Association Managing Committee

All residents who partook in interviews and surveys

Staff of Biome

Chitti Babu

Mr. Muniyappa

SS Ranganathan


2

Table of contents

Abstract………………………………………………………….…….Pg. 3

Pt. 1 - Introduction to RBD and the

context for water management reform...............................................Pg. 6

Pt. 2 - Integrated Water Management Interventions………………Pg. 10

Pt. 3 - Demand: understanding

consumer behaviour and attitudes at RBD…....................................Pg. 16

Pt. 4 - Supply: understanding RBD’s

groundwater supply and service delivery…………………………...Pg. 24

Pt. 5 - RBD’s wastewater management analysis…………………….Pg. 35

Appendices

Appendix 1: Links to media

articles about Rainbow Drive Layout.……………………………….Pg. 38

Appendix 2: Demand Metrics...............................................................Pg. 39

Appendix 3: Demand Distribution.......................................................Pg. 40

Appendix 4: Household demand analysis questionnaire……………Pg. 41

Appendix 5: RO Survey Analysis.........................................................Pg. 44

Appendix 6: Data for Borewells and Pumping....................................Pg. 47

Appendix 7: Tabulation of borewell

pumping electricity consumed at RBD................................................Pg. 48

Appendix 8: Results from slug

tests on select RBD recharge wells.......................................................Pg. 49

Appendix 9: Open well test logs: compiled findings...........................Pg. 53

Appendix 10: Water quality tests for

select RBD open well and yielding borewells………………………...Pg. 55


3

Abstract

Rainbow Drive (RBD) is a private, gated residential layout that is representative

of an increasingly common land-use pattern in growing cities like Bangalore. Like many

other private layouts, RBD is situated outside the reach of the city’s water utility, and like

other layouts, its residents were left to fend for their own water needs after the inevitable

departure of the developer. RBD’s Plot Owners’ Association (POA) has responded to

these tasks with longer-term sustainability in mind, rather than adopting reactive coping

strategies. Led by one particularly water-conscious member, the POA has acted on the

notion that water demand is the most effective rallying point for galvanizing action

toward sustainability measures. Biome’s analysis of these efforts has revealed much

about the nature of demand in private layouts, as well as the possibilities and constraints

of decentralized water governance. In this sense, RBD represents a desirable response of

an urban community whose significance ought to be considered in the larger context of

urban water management.

Biome Environmental first engaged with RBD after it was called upon by the POA

member leading its water agenda to discuss rainwater harvesting with its residents. It

quickly became apparent that RBD demonstrated the potential for a model of community

action toward sustainable water management. In the absence of any institutional or legal

framework to guide it, the POA undertook efforts for comprehensive rainwater harvesting

implementation, restructured its water pricing scheme to recover costs and discourage

wastage, enforced a ban on private borewells for the sake of the community borewell

supply, and methodically approached new borewell exploration. In Biome’s years of

engaging with communities, this was the first layout we witnessed taking such a

comprehensive approach to water management, and Biome thus took up the monitoring

exercise in order to develop the full picture of RBD’s water management regime and the

lessons it might carry for other communities and even city planners. This document is a

report of the findings from this investigation.

The RBD story represents impressive advancements and the exceptional challenge of

remaking a community to exist in balance with its ecological limits. RBD has succeeded

in enhancing the financial viability of its water management regime by doubling monthly

revenues and meeting the need to recover its production cost of water and sanitation.

This is a vast improvement over its past pricing scheme, though it is limited by the lack

of a sinking fund that could accumulate savings for future capital or emergency expenses.

It has also succeeded in raising water supply literacy with the residents, though this has

not necessarily resulted in reduced demand, and its unsustainable groundwater extraction

continues. There is also virtually no understanding among most residents or staff of the

Sewage Treatment Plan (STP), and an independent analysis found the STP to be

underperforming in terms of the infrastructure and output quality. On the demand side,

Biome has identified a correlation between household water consumption and plot size.

It is surmised that gardening and lawns are a key driver of the higher household

consumption in larger plots, as they tend to have proportionally greater space dedicated to

greenery. Verifying this hypothesis would be difficult without direct end-use metering,

however, as an attempt to use consumer feedback to understand the break-up of


4

household demand revealed that consumers tend to underestimate their end-use

consumption. Confirmation of this would suggest a potentially crucial role for

treated sewage water to bring down the overall demand in borewell supply.

Finally, Biome has extrapolated the layout’s total water demand when at full occupancy,

which will be vital to RBD’s future water planning.

The monitoring exercise at RBD has illuminated a few critical points that are valuable in

the larger context of urban water management. One such lesson is that the nature of

demand in RBD – likely similar to those of other middle to upper income earning

communities throughout Bangalore – is very different from the theoretical figure of 135

lpcd used by city planning agencies. The layout’s per capita demand of 246 lpcd calls

into question the usefulness of a single metric for projecting water requirements

throughout the city, and perhaps suggests that improved city planning may be effected by

a review of actual demand patterns for different segments of the urban populace.

Another contribution to the larger dialogue of urban water management is RBD’s implicit

acknowledgment of the aphorism “the great is the enemy of the good”. RBD’s actions to

secure its water supply have not necessarily been preceded by any in-depth scientific or

hydrological study. While the POA sought to inform its decisions by science, action has

not depended on a total understanding of its groundwater. In contrast to the approach

commonly recommended within the hydrogeological community of gathering macro-

level data to inform large-scale interventions, RBD’s efforts have centered around using

readily available data on its demand to spur movement toward a new water management

regime. Indeed, once these early efforts gained some traction, the focus has broadened to

include supply elements that can enhance and expand these measures.

They did all of this in a context that would not be considered enabling. No laws or tax

breaks supporting such efforts. Very few players in the market available to bring

comprehensive thinking to water mgmt. and the paradigm of decentralized water mgmt is

still in the nascent stages. How to create an enabling environment.

A final lesson of the monitoring exercise concerns the feasibility of RBD’s efforts as a

model of decentralized water management. RBD accomplished its water management

reforms in a context without strong regulatory, legal or financial support from

government and relevant agencies, and with few players in the market able to bring

comprehensive thinking to bear on a strategy for decentralised water management. In

spite of this, RBD has shown that community-managed watsan is possible, but is a great

responsibility whose success is contingent upon time and technical capacity. Watsan

management presents challenges, technical and social, perhaps unlike those of any other

locally managed utility. Resolving these issues demands heavy investments of time,

which can be difficult since most POA members have full-time jobs outside of their

layout governance duties. And despite its forward thinking leadership, RBD is still

dependent on outside consultants and operators to help determine and implement

appropriate courses of action. The question remaining is how private actors and urban

governance bodies can best serve communities like RBD to fill this vacuum?


5

The answer to this question lies partly in the wealth of knowledge that is a

natural by-product of the work accomplished by the numerous independent

players operating in the sustainable water sector. Engaging in this monitoring

exercise has shown us at Biome the enormous value to which this knowledge can be put

to further the understanding of Bangalore’s urban waters along its scientific and socio-

economic dimensions.


6

Pt. 1 – Introduction to RBD and the context for water

management reform

Introduction

The Rainbow Drive (RBD) Layout is a progressive layout that has under an enlightened

leadership with the will to bring about change, undertaken many “reforms” in the way it

supplies and manages water. It is a private gated housing community that experienced

water concerns similar to those of other layouts and housing complexes becoming

increasingly popular and prevalent in the city of Bangalore. The Rainbow Drive Plot

Owners Association (POA) has taken very seriously the business of managing its water

as a finite resource. Some of the changes it has undertaken can be an example for other

similar housing complexes to emulate. The RBD layout engaged with Biome

Environmental Solutions to implement some of its changes. Subsequently with the

support of Arghyam Foundation, the RBD POA and Biome has engaged in a monitoring

exercise in the layout over approximately a year to understand some of the issues in more

detail and evolve learnings for dissemination to a larger audience.

Every attempt has been made to present the activities, key learnings and analytical

perspectives in the body of the document while media coverage, substantiating data,

calculations etc are presented in the appendix. The document represents the key

learnings from the monitoring exercise carried out between Nov 2008 and Nov 2009.

Biome has already “abstracted” the totality of the intervention in such a community into a

broad process that any other such community will need to follow with context specific

tailoring. This process provides both technical and peoples’ angles as well as connects it

with larger issues of water management in the city. This “process document” has already

been published in www.citizenmatters.in as a four part series. Links to this series as well

as other media articles can be found in Appendix 1.

Rainbow Drive history: Context for reform

The 34-acre campus of Rainbow Drive layout was developed ten years ago with 360 plots

and six community borewells. Only two of the borewells were used, with the others

intended as backups. The current occupancy is 222 homes, 78 of which are filled by

tenants and the remaining 144 are filled by the owners.

In the early years of the decade, some residents noted that water wastage throughout the

layout was rampant – many people hose-washed their cars each morning, overhead tanks

at the layout and household level overflowed with regularity, water was used

indiscriminately by construction crews building new homes, and household construction

household sumps overflowed during the due to defective float valves that were not

promptly replaced.


7

Starting two to three years ago, residents reported the borewells generating more sand

and hard water. Meanwhile, the residents grew aware of neighbouring layouts and

apartments running into problems of water scarcity. The southeastern region of Bangalore

was coming to be regarded as the “waterless Colony”. The borewells of a nearby

apartment building with 551 flats had gone completely dry, and the POA was purchasing

100-150 water tankers every day to meet its needs1.

Aside from the financial implications, some residents recognized that becoming

dependent on water tankers would be a much greater inconvenience to its residents than

those of some neighbouring apartments and even some layouts. Whereas an apartment

building’s water supply is stored in a few centralised sumps that can be managed by the

property staff, there is no central RBD sump. Rather, each resident has a private sump,

and therefore each household would have to coordinate their own tanker delivery for

when their supply runs low.

At the same time, flooding was a growing water management challenge. Rainbow Drive,

like many other Bangalore developments, was built in the midst of a natural water

drainage path that led to frequent flooding. The flooding was even worse for the villagers

outside the layout, because Rainbow Drive’s peripheral wall effectively dammed the

floodwaters. During one heavy rainfall, the homes outside the layout were completely

submerged in the floodwaters, prompting the villagers to knock down the peripheral wall.

Within a half hour, Rainbow Drive’s front gate was flooded up to five feet deep, and

residents were unable to exit the layout for work.

As these concerns grew, residents grew unsatisfied with the ongoing layout management

by the developer, and formed the Rainbow Drive POA in 2004 to manage their common

resources.

Role of the POA

The POA is a registered society with 12 elected members. It was formed in September

2004, and was established with the objectives to ensure the orderly maintenance of the

layout, to maintain security and the peace within the layout, to safeguard the interest and

rights of individual plot owners, and to maintain civic and other infrastructure facilities of

the layout.

The POA is vested with the authority to create rules regarding its objectives that apply to

all Rainbow Drive residents. New rules and policies are passed by vote, and though not

required for passage, consensus is strongly preferred. The reforms are then typically

communicated to the layout residents via circulars distributed by hand to residents’

1 Charumathi Supraja, “Going from tanker to tanker,” Citizen Matters, April 1 2008, 2.


8

homes and also emailed to a Yahoo group established for residents, with a

mailing list of approximately 150 people. If there is a likelihood of debate over

a new rule, then the POA allows several weeks for resident feedback and

revisions if required before activating the rule.

The RBD POA’s efforts to manage its water resources began in earnest in 2006, two

years after its establishment. The time gap is due in part to the POA’s discovery of the

difficulty in running a layout and the learning curve involved therein. By 2006, however,

a situation more amenable to water management reform had arisen. Concerns about the

community’s borewell supply and the water scarcity facing neighbouring layouts

persisted. As more residents moved in, they increased the pumping load of the borewells,

leading to more frequent breakdowns.

A group led by one resident particularly committed to reforming the layout’s water

management practices ran for the POA as a team in 2006. Upon being elected, they

enacted a number of innovative practices intended to increase the efficiency, equity and

potentially even the sustainability of their water resources.

Due importance must be paid to the fact that the overall impetus for water management

reforms originated with this individual resident. One of the other POA members stated

that he joined the POA essentially to support this leader’s effort. However, all members

agreed that it was necessary for people other than this leader to actively support the

reforms with other residents to give the impression of a broad base of support.

It is noted that there is disagreement between POA members about the legal standing of

its rules. Determining the legality of its rules will require further investigation at some

point in time. The implications of such an exercise are profound. If in fact the rules

carry the weight of law, then this could, among other things, potentially grant the POA

certain recourse in dealing with uncooperative residents. In the case that the POA has no

legal authority to make decisions regarding water and sanitation services, then it is the

coupling of social pressure with the democratic legitimacy attributed to POA decisions

alone that can uphold these reforms. The legal standing of the reforms also carries strong

implications for how replicable they may be in other contexts.

Role of the layout staff

The layout staff is the administrative arm of the POA, in that it carries out any

management-related activities determined by the POA. The staff includes an estate

manager, an assistant estate manager, a plumber, and several labourers. The estate

manager has a seat on the POA.

The assistant estate manager had been hired in part to fill the role of a water management

supervisor. In his 60-hour work week, fully 24 are spent managing the layout’s water

infrastructure.


9

In addition to executing the POA’s new water initiatives, the staff manage the

layout’s water infrastructure. That includes the operation of the two Sewage

Treatment Plants and the two-three active borewells supplying the water towers,

which then distribute water to the sumps of layout owners. Three times a week, the water

is supplied twice a day, and the rest of the week it is supplied only once. The tasks

required for the borewells and water towers include opening and closing the water tower

valves before and after the scheduled water distribution, and switching the borewell

operation from automatic to manual on days when water is distributed only once so as to

stagger the pumping throughout the day and allow the borewell motor to rest.


10

Pt. 2 – Integrated Water Management Interventions

The POA enacted each of the water management-related initiatives described

below. The reforms emphasize groundwater and demand management. The POA

envisions that it will focus on wastewater management in the next phase of reform. The

salient actions undertaken by the POA are as follows.

1. Block the digging of private borewells

Even before the involvement of the POA, one of the earliest moves Rainbow Drive

residents took toward achieving water sustainability was to ban the digging of private

borewells. This originated with the developer’s initial encouragement that residents

depend on community borewells alone. When some residents sought to sink private

borewells, the POA and other concerned residents insisted that private borewells would

increase water wastage and reduce the community borewell yields. At one point a group

of residents prevented a borewell truck from entering the layout. The POA called upon a

hydrogeologist who reported that the community could sustain 10-15 borewells at most,

and any more would lead to faster depletion of the water table. This argument eventually

prevailed.

2. Data collection to discover consumption and supply patterns

Once the reform-oriented POA was elected, the committee member who championed its

water efforts took a year to thoroughly investigate the layout’s water management

practices and their sustainability. The data from this exercise would inform the process

of developing necessary reforms.

The most critical element of his research was the fact that households from the early days

of the layout had been required to install consumption meters that measure the quantum

of water entering one’s sump each day. The meters were then recorded by one of the

layout staff every 2 months in order to calculate each household’s water bill for that

cycle. A common adage in the water management sector is that you can only manage

that which you measure, and this data – though sometimes faulty do to malfunctioning

meters and lack of incentive to repair meters in a timely fashion – proved to be the

cornerstone of the consumption study.

One major finding was that the four unused borewells, intended as backups the two

functional borewells, were in fact dry. Another analysis of consumption patterns

revealed that roughly one-third of the residents consumed 50% of the layout’s water.

Another significant finding was that an enormous amount of water was used for new

home construction. Plot owners were not present during construction, and were unaware

of the amount of water consumed in the building of their homes. Construction crews had

no incentive to save water, and consequently consumed thousands of litres daily.

Moreover, this water was potable, which is not necessary for construction.

The most significant finding was that the water pricing was far too low. The flat rate of

Rs. 6 per KL did not provide any incentive for water conservation. The POA member


11

also found that water tariff only accounted for the electricity used to pump

borewell water. It did not account for the maintenance costs of bore wells, or

the costs of cleaning the water tanks, waterproofing leaks, or fixes to faulty

piping. Most importantly, it was found that the cost of treating sewage was not

accounted in the household water bill at all. Rather, sewage treatment costs, which are

much more costly than supply costs, were rolled into the layout maintenance fee that was

divided equally among residents. This was inequitable billing, however, since the

sewage output per household is proportionate to its water consumption. The POA

determined that the true production cost of water was Rs. 16-17 per kilolitre.

In addition to the under-pricing of its water supply and treatment, the payment recovery

was poor due to defaulting and lax enforcement of bills. These two factors led to cash

crunches in 2007 and 2008 that required the POA to break its Fixed Deposits.

3. Banning bore well use for construction

New construction projects were required to source their water from outside Rainbow

Drive. Most typically they would purchase tanker water, whose cost would quickly catch

the attention of homebuilders and help ensure more responsible usage.

This decision was essentially necessitated by the fact that construction is recognized as a

commercial activity, and all activities tied to it are also commercial, such as electricity

consumption. This was discovered when the electricity utility conducted an energy audit

of RBD, and found that borewell water was used for home constructions. Since the POA

could not identify the specific energy consumed by the borewells for pumping to homes

under construction, the utility billed all of RBD’s electricity for that month at the

commercial rate. This caused the bill to spike by 25%, and the ban on borewell use for

construction was passed shortly thereafter.

4. Implementing rainwater harvesting at household and community levels

The POA engaged with Biome to develop rainwater harvesting (RWH) strategies. Biome

proposed a community-level approach of implementing groundwater recharge wells in

targeted locations to reduce flooding and replenish the aquifer. Biome also proposed that

interested households invest in rooftop rainwater harvesting systems for direct storage

and use. Eventually, some 5 households implemented rain barrels to collect rooftop

runoff, and individual homeowners and the POA collectively invested in 59 groundwater

recharge wells of various sizes with a total holding volume of 2,19,000 litres. It is

estimated that given Bangalore’s rainfall patterns, 9.942 million litres of rainwater is

recharged to the ground each year. The map on page 15 presents the spatial distribution

of the recharge wells throughout the layout, along with the other water-related

infrastructure.

5. New water pricing scheme

The POA determined that unless water was priced appropriately, residents would not

value it. They developed a block tariff that accounted for the true production cost of

water supply and sanitation. Since average household use was between 24 and 30 KL,

the first 30 KL would be priced at cost, which averaged out to Rs. 17/KL.


12

Rainbow Drive water tariff slabs

Water consumption level Tariff

First 10,000 litres (0 -10 KL) Rs.10 per KL

Next 10,000 (10 – 20 KL) Rs.15 per KL

Next 10,000 (20 – 30 KL) Rs.25 per KL

Next 10,000 (30 – 40 KL) Rs.40 per KL

Above this > 40 KL Rs.60 per KL

The highest pricing slab is set higher than the cost of tanker water to convey that the

layout is not interested in supplying large amounts of water for individual households.

Rs. 100 savings were built into the pricing slabs for those homes implementing

groundwater recharge wells in order to provide an incentive for their uptake. The POA

enforces timely payments by penalizing delinquency at Rs. 10/day. Penalties also apply

when a household directs its rainwater into the layout’s sewerage or if it fails to

recalibrate or replace a faulty meter one month after the malfunction is noticed.

The pricing was intended to accumulate savings in order to pay for periodic repairs to the

layout’s sewage treatment plant, water tanks, etc. However, the POA has since noticed

the pricing should be even higher to account for repairs as well as new capital

expenditures such as the digging of new borewells, and they will need to revisit the

pricing slabs in the future.

The POA changed the billing cycle from two months to one to give residents a chance to

make any adjustments to household demand or faulty infrastructure before their water

bills became too expensive. After the first month of the new billing scheme, it quickly

became apparent that many houses had faulty water meters, as some readings were

strikingly high or low.

One immediate benefit of separating water and sanitation pricing out from other layout

fees was that it led to a rational restructuring of the other layout expenses. Once

sanitation expenses were removed from the general maintenance fee, it became apparent

that each of the expenses in the layout – such as landscaping, cleaning the roads, staff

salaries and security – were independent of a resident’s plot size or behaviour, and

therefore they could be averaged equally across all plots.


13

6. Effectively engaging with the layout residents

The POA recognized the critical importance of communicating the proposed

reforms to the entire layout community and gaining their support. One-on-one

interactions were considered the most effective, though the POA members also

distributed circulars and hosted a resident meeting with Biome to introduce the

community to the RWH concept.

More than one POA member asserted that being able to present the economic logic

behind the pricing slab scheme was critical. In preparation, the POA member leading the

water management reforms developed models that could clearly communicate how the

production cost of water and its disposal was found. One POA member stressed that

because most RBD residents are in the managerial cadre, they would scrutinize the

models to see that enough analysis had been done and that the conclusions were sound.

Any holes in the logic would have failed to convince the bulk of the residents.

Two other arguments were emphasized during the process to convince residents of the

necessity for reform. The first was to explain how the inconvenience and expense

incurred during bore well repair days would only be compounded if they went dry,

because the homeowner would have to manage the burden of coordinating their own

tanker orders. The second argument focused on residents’ sense of fairness by explaining

that the old pricing scheme averaged out the cost of sewage treatment evenly amongst all

residents, regardless of how much wastewater they produced. Under this scheme, most

residents are effectively subsidizing their neighbours’ excessive water use.

Two POA members commented that ultimately less than 10% of the residents objected to

the new pricing scheme, and that a general body meeting was not even necessary.

7. Additional investments in water infrastructure

In 2008 and 2009, the POA commissioned surveys by a borewell specialist, a water

diviner, and a hydrogeologist for the purpose of pinpointing new borewell locations. The

rationale for new borewell exploration was that the layout was entirely dependent on only

two borewells, and a back-up borewell was deemed a necessity in case either of them

were to experience technical or supply problems. Additionally, the POA noticed that the

supply from the two borewells was insufficient, as people at the end of the distribution

network were not receiving as much as other residents.

Consequently, three borewell locations were identified and attempted. One attempt failed

without striking water. The other two wells struck water, though the yields were

relatively low compared to the other yielding borewells. Due to the high cost of sinking a

motor and laying the water pipeline from the borewell to the overhead tank, only one of

the two wells was connected to the system. The other well will serve as a backup should

it become necessary.

In addition to the digging of new borewells, the POA invested in a process called

hydrofracturing on one of its inactive borewells at Biome’s suggestion. Hydrofracturing


14

involves the injection of water at high pressure into the borewell, which blows

out any silt blockages that can accumulate in the fissures supplying the

borewell’s water. The hydrofracturing took place in mid-2009, and a yield test

in November 2009 found that the borewell yields approximately 3,000 litres per hour for

four hours at a stretch. Upon reviewing the favorable results, the POA plans to invest in

a new motor for the borewell and connect it to the water delivery grid by January 2010.

Several additional investments in water infrastructure resulted from Biome’s engagement

with the POA throughout the monitoring exercise. These include the purchase of source

meters for the layout’s yielding borewells and investments in renovating the two

underperforming Sewage Treatment Plants. There is more information on these

investments and the reasoning behind them in the following sections.

The following page contains a map of the water infrastructure throughout Rainbow Drive

Layout.

In total, the RBD POA and individual residents have collectively invested approximately

Rs. 17,25,000/- toward sustainable efforts.

Private Investments Leveraged

Collective investment (recharge wells) 625000

Individual investments 750000

Investment into maj for STP 300000

Investment into water meters 25000

Investment into hydrogeology study 25000

1725000 Rs towards water literacy and sustainability


15


16

Pt. 3 – Demand: understanding consumer behaviour and

attitudes at RBD

RBD’s water demand

This section attempts to establish a basic understanding of water demand in Rainbow

Drive. There is also an attempt to correlate this demand data with a possible ecological

framework for water management. Issues of production cost of water and an analysis

from an economic perspective will be dealt with separately.

Note on data:

The data used for the analysis presented is:

a) Obtained from consumption meters of the households

b) Obtained for the period February 2008 to February 2009

c) Corresponds to data after the implementation of the new pricing scheme, as the

data during this period is more reliable.

d) Corresponds to a period of monthly billing cycles.

The Tariff plan during this period of Rainbow Drive is: Consumption slab Tariff

Slab 1 (0-10KL) Rs. 10

Slab 2 (10-20KL) Rs. 15

Slab 3 (20-30KL) Rs. 25

Slab 4 (30-40KL) Rs. 40

Slab 5 (>40 KL) Rs. 60

Demand: Key Metrics

Based on the analysis (Refer to Appendix 2: Demand – Key Metrics) the following are

the key metrics

Metric Measure Remarks

Current average monthly

layout consumption

6455 Kilo Litres / month Corresponds to 220

households. There are a

total of 360 plots in the

layout.

Current average monthly

household consumption

29.5 Kilo Litres / household

/ month

Calculated based on current

monthly average total and

current no of households

Current daily per capita

consumption

246 Litres / capita / day Calculated based on 4

members per household –

which matches Rainbow

Drive’s average.

Projected average monthly

layout consumption at full

occupancy

10610 Kilo Litres / month Projected based on the

above per capita values for

360 households.


17

Demand: Distribution

Distribution of demand was analysed from two perspectives (Refer Appendix 3

for details):

1. With reference to the national urban water consumption norm of 135 liters per

capita per day and the layout’s average per capita consumption.

2. With reference to plot size of the different plots within the layout to see if any

correlation exists.

Benchmark of

consumption

No of households Percentage of households

Up to 135 LPCD 32 14%

Up to 246 LPCD (layout

average)

130 59%

Greater than 246 LPCD 89 40%

• The above indicates that most of the households have a demand much greater than

the norm of 135 LPCD

• A significant 40% of the layout consume more than the layout average.

An attempt was made to try and correlate the latter of the above observations with the

plot size :

Consumption

slab (Higher

than average

layout

consumption)

Plot sizes <=

1000 sq ft

Plot sizes

between 1000

to 2000 sq ft

Plot sizes

between

2000 to

3000 sq ft

Plot sizes

between

3000 sq ft

to 4000 sq

ft

Plot sizes

greater

than 4000

sq ft

Slab 4 (30-40KL)

Slab 5 (>40 KL)

55 % of these

plots falls

into these

higher

consumption

slabs

33% of these

plots falls into

these higher

consumption

slabs

32% of

these plots

falls into

these higher

consumption

slabs

46% of

these plots

falls into

these higher

consumption

slabs

60% of

these plots

falls into

these higher

consumption

slabs

From the above it can be seen that the distribution of higher consuming households

increases as the plot size increases, with the exception of the smallest plot sizes. Based

on this, the following has been surmised:

a) Regarding the exceptionally higher percentage of high-consuming small plot

homes, the smallest plots actually represent a larger plot that has multiple homes

within it, but which share a single water meter and therefore show a higher

consumption slab – these plots are therefore not representative of a demand trend

correlating to plot size.

b) Larger plots consume more water, it is assumed, due to proportionally larger

gardens/driveways. During the next phase, the contribution of gardening use to

demand in these households will be assessed.


18

To test our assumptions of how water was being used at the household level, we

selected five households for a more in-depth analysis of household end uses.

Two participants were drawn from Slab 5, one from Slab 4, and two from Slab

2. The expectation was that the samples from Slab 2 would provide the benchmark of

“normal” water consumption against which we could compare higher-end users. We also

wanted to whether the nature of water use was different between high- and low- water

users or if it was more a difference of degree.

The data for this household demand analysis was collected in the form of in-person

interviews, on-site measurements, and an end-user questionnaire. A copy of the

questionnaire listing all the data points captured from the participating households can be

found in Appendix 4.

Unfortunately, the methodology was faulty in the sense that it was highly dependent on

user feedback. The discrepancy between one the actual household consumption and the

estimate gathered from one participant was 400 litres per day. The lesson this exercise

seems to suggest is that end-users tended to poorly understand their own water

consumption patterns. To develop an accurate picture of household consumption would

likely require end-use metering or an extended data-collection training session for

household participants.

Analytical Perspectives and an Ecological Framework for water management

The project layout demand in the “Key Metrics” table above shows that there will be a

64% increase in demand for the layout once it reaches full occupancy. Given that this

entire layout is dependent on groundwater resources, the key questions are:

a) Is this demand too high and unsustainable? What measures should be taken to

bring net freshwater demand down?

b) Can current groundwater resources sustain the layout as it moves towards full

occupancy?

c) How much more should be invested in recharge for longer term sustainability of

these resources?

Some perspectives on the above questions are presented in the following two scenarios of

RBD’s water consumption at full occupancy:

Scenario 1 assumptions:

1. Per capita demand remains as they are presently at 246

2. Significant more investment in Rooftop rainwater harvesting, Recharge and

wastewater reuse.

3. These investments are represented by % efficiency of capture of rainfall run-off

from rooftops and other areas. Further all the gardening requirement reuses

wastewater in this scenario

Scenario 2 assumptions:

1. Per capita demand is reduced to 135 LPCD


19

2. Significant increase investment in rooftop rainwater harvesting,

groundwater recharge and wastewater reuse.

3. These investments are represented by % efficiency of capture of rainfall

run-off from rooftops and other areas. Further all the gardening requirement

reuses wastewater in this scenario.

Analysis of Scenarios 1 and 2:

A cursory analysis of Scenarios 1 and 2 reveals that reducing per capita consumption will

have far greater impact on RBD’s groundwater supply than investments in community-

level sustainable water practices.

Scenario 1 shows that even if RBD accommodates its entire gardening demand with

treated wastewater and harvests fully 80% of rainwater falling on rooftops and other

surfaces, there will still be an annual overdraft of 32 million litres of groundwater.

Scenario 2 shows that a reduction in per capita demand to 150 lpcd, use of treated

wastewater for all gardening needs, and more modest investments in rainwater harvesting

will produce 2 million-litre net addition to groundwater supply.

The quantum of disposed wastewater in each scenario is of particular note, and may merit

consideration for groundwater recharge if it should prove to be of sufficient quality.


20

Scenario 1 : Current Demand levels and Full Occupancy

Occupancy Demand

% Total no HH Total demand 10627 KL / month or 130 ML / year

Occupancy for model 100% 360 Per capita Demand 246 LPCD

Current occupancy 61% 220 Gardening demand 25 LPCD (assumption)

Persons per household 4 Total Annual gardening

demand 1080 KL / month or 14 ML / year

Occupancy at 100% 100% 360

Discharge Land Use

Discharge rate 80% of non-gardening consumption

Total Area of layout 34 acres

Discharge 93 ML / year Rooftops 60% 82416 sqm

Other areas 40% 54944 sqm

Rainfall Runoff

Rooftops 72 ML / year

Other areas 32 ML / year

Water Sources and Demand Match at an Annual Level

Efficiency of Rooftop Rainfall capture 80% Rooftop rainwater 58

ML / year

Efficiency of capture for Recharge 80%

Gardening from wastewater 14

ML / year

Extent of gardening demand from WW 100%

Net groundwater dependence 58

ML / year

Recharge into ground 26 ML / year

Net annual groundwater

overdraft 32 ML / year

Disposed wastewater 79 ML / year


21

Scenario 2 : Reduced Demand levels (150 LPCD) and Full Occupancy

Occupancy Demand

% Total no HH Total demand 6480 KL / month or 79

ML / year

Occupancy for model 100% 360 Per capita Demand 150 LPCD

Current occupancy 61% 220 Gardening demand 20 LPCD (assumption)

Persons per household 4 Total Annual gardening

demand 864 KL / month or 11

ML / year

Occupancy at 100% 100% 360

Discharge Land Use

Discharge rate 80% of non-gardening consumption

Total Area of layout 34 acres

Discharge 55 ML / year Rooftops 60% 82416 sqm

Other areas 40% 54944 sqm

Rainfall Runoff

Rooftops 72 ML / year

Other areas 32 ML / year

Water Sources and Demand Match at an Annual Level

Efficiency of Rooftop Rainfall capture 60% Rooftop rainwater 44

ML / year

Efficiency of capture for Recharge 80% Gardening from wastewater 11

ML / year

Extent of gardening demand from WW 100%

Net groundwater dependence 24

ML / year

Recharge into ground 26 ML / year

Net annual groundwater

overdraft -2 ML / year

Disposed wastewater 44 ML / year


22

Consumer response to new pricing policies

Reactions to the water pricing changes was divided, though in general the

opinion was supportive. Some residents reported being “furious” upon reading the

announcement of the price hike, though only a few posed strong opposition arguments on

RBD’s resident email listserv. Several who were unhappy with the changes to the pricing

had accepted the logic behind the hike, though not necessarily the scale of the increase.

Residents interviewed did not report any reduction in consumption as a result of the

higher prices.

Observations of household water uses

RO systems

As survey of the 85 households found that 54% use reverse osmosis (RO) systems for

their drinking and cooking water, with an average estimated discharge output of 20 litres

per household/day. Assuming the discharge estimate to be accurate, then RBD generates

8,56,000 of high TDS discharge annually from RO systems along. Approximately half of

that amount is going toward gardening and car washing, with the other 4lakh litres going

to the STPs. Full results from the RO survey can be found in Appendix 5.

The survey found that the residents made these decisions believing that their water is

hard, a suspicion that was reinforced by the salespeople who sold them their systems.

However, we tests taken on the layout’s two active borewells reveals that the hardness

levels fall below the desirable limit of 300 ppm.

Car washing

A theme that every resident interviewed raised was car washing. This was commonly

noted as the single greatest behavior change toward water conservation taken at the

household level. Most residents have drivers, who invariably used the hose to clean the

owner’s car in the mornings. A campaign was launched by the POA and other residents

to encourage all residents to wash their cars less frequently and to instruct their driver to

use buckets instead of hoses. Though a formal POA rule on the same was defeated, the

campaign has clearly had a psychological impact on residents. The actual quantum of

water saved by reducing the number of car washes and switching to bucket washing is

presently unknown, though the assistant estate manager reported a noticeable reduction in

the amount of water used to wash cars in the mornings as a result of a POA campaign to

convince residents to use buckets instead of hoses for car washing and to reduce the

number of days to wash their cars.

Household RWH

Samples of rainwater were taken from two 500-litre barrels at different households – one

household was tested in May, August, and September 2009, and the other household was


23

tested in May and September 2009. The samples were submitted to a lab for

potability testing. Both results from the May test were shown to be potable after

treatment for bacteria (boiling, Aquaguard). One household’s rain barrel was

empty in August, but the other home’s sample was shown to be potable, and an H2S strip

test to check for the presence of E. coli or Faecal coliform was clear.

In September, the rains had recently filled both barrels, and though the overall water

quality was good in both samples, both were deemed not potable. One sample was ruled

not potable because of the hazy color of the water, though the bacteriological and

chemical analyses were clear. Our suspicion is that the color is related to the fact that

runoff enter the rain barrel directly without any filtration or first rain separation, so when

a sample is taken recently after a rainfall, the silt and organic matter in the water will

have yet to have entirely settled to the base of the tank. The second rain barrel was

deemed not potable due to high iron content, though the other parameters, including

bacteriological contamination were clear. The high measurement was inexplicable,

however, since the catchment had no presence of rusting or other sources that could

contribute iron.

Though the samples were not uniformly clean, both homeowners were impressed with

the overall water quality of their rain barrel water, and expressed interest in exploring the

possibility of collecting more water from their terrace and directing it into their sumps

after filtration.

One other aspect of household RWH use was observed during a survey of the open wells

throughout the layout carried out in September 2009. The surveyor found that five

residents had converted small recharge wells on their properties into rainwater sumps to

use for irrigating their gardens. Further investigation of this phenomenon is warranted to

determine why the wells were converted and how the residents have been using and

maintaining the sumps since the conversion.

Ban on private borewells &

Ban on community borewells for construction

Each of these measures were uniformly supported by those interviewed. Every

respondent was in favor of the restrictions on private borewell exploration, and most were

strongly supportive of the notion to strictly maintain the practice of only relying upon

community borewells. The belief expressed was that private borewell exploration would

lead to indiscriminate consumption and thus dry up the water sources at a much faster

rate than if all water was sourced collectively.


24

Pt. 4 – Supply: understanding RBD’s groundwater

supply and service delivery

Groundwater dependence and management

RBD is completely driven by groundwater, which highlights the critical importance of

sound groundwater management. An overall groundwater management regime at RBD

can be informed by an understanding of the borewells and their behavioural

characteristics, an understanding of the hydrogeology of the area and the overall

economics of groundwater-based water supply. This section captures data and presents

some analytical perspectives around these issues. It also presents some key learnings

from the process of arriving at this data and analysis. While the findings present a clear

direction for progress, it must be noted that the data and analysis would require additional

efforts to bring to completion.

Current infrastructure

The map on page 15 above points out the yielding and dry borewells present in RBD.

These borewells pump water to two centralized overhead tanks handling distribution to

different parts of the layout. The water from the overhead tanks is then released to the

households as per a water release schedule. A pipe network takes this water to the

household sumps, where each household is consumption metered. The households are

then billed as per the Tariff regime described above on a monthly cycle.

Installation of source metering

To establish a clearer understanding of the borewells, their relative contribution to the

yields and costs of supplying water to the layout, Biome worked with the POA to install

source metering of the borewells. This was done completely at the cost of the POA.

Two source water meters were installed to the two highest yielding borewells. However

technical problems were faced with these water meters – they kept getting blocked /

jammed by sand particles that the borewell pumped out. Subsequently filters were

installed on the source meters and its performance is now being monitored. However due

to these technical problems faced, the estate management staff has not been able to

collect and maintain data regularly from the source meters. Some persistence and talking

to the POA is necessary to embed the practice of maintaining the source water meter and

maintaining its data.

All borewells in Rainbow Drive already had separate electrical metering.

The following you tube movie gives the installation process the first time around:

Electrical and Water Metering of borewells


25

The following are some photographs of the same (source meter and filter).

Borewells and Pumping from the Borewell

Currently RBD’s water is dependent on three critical borewells. The pumping schedule

of the borewells and the water release schedule to the households is provided in the

Appendix 6. Different borewells are also named in the Appendix 7.

Of the three yielding borewells (8SWP 5329, 8SWP 6686 and 8SP 165) two borewells

(8SWP 5329, 8SP 165) contribute most significantly to the total volume of water

pumped. They also represent the major electricity consumption for pumping. However,

as source metering was not completed and faced technical problems during the period of

the study, data on individual borewell contributions to the total quantum of water pumped

is not available. However, individual electricity consumed is available.

Based on the above data, an overall analysis of pumping energy consumed has been done.

The below graphs represent three metrics. Before getting into the metrics themselves, a

short note on the data used is warranted.

a) All electricity consumption data has been compiled based on real data during the

period from electricity bills of the various borewells.

b) Since reliable data from the source metering is absent, all water consumption data

has been based on consumption meter readings during the same period. This data

is however reliable due to the frequent maintenance of consumption meters.

c) The consumption metering data runs on a monthly cycle starting in the middle of

each month. However, the electricity consumption data runs on a monthly cycle

starting beginning of each month. For this reason, the monthly consumption data

for each month has been halved and each half apportioned to the appropriate

month of the electricity billing cycle.

The tabulation of all the data is available in the Appendix 7. Three critical metrics, their

relevance and questions they raise now follows:

I) Total energy consumed for pumping and its monthly variation

The table below provides the variation of pumping units consumed over the year.

Overlying the bar graph is the rainfall pattern (average in Bangalore).


26

From the above table it is clear that –

a) There is an inverse correlation between rainfall and pumping units consumed.

The total electricity consumed reduces on high rainy months and those that

immediately follow it. The electricity consumed is highest in April-May when

pre-monsoon is setting in but these represent the months with the longest gap in

rainfall. (Variation from 3350 units to 8400 units)

b) It must be remembered that the demand across the months are not uniform and

therefore while the above is useful in understanding pumping units consumed

across the year, it does not yet reflect changes in demand across the year.

II) Per KL pumping units consumed and its monthly variation

Per KL units consumed and Rainfall

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

April

08

May

08

June

08

July

08

Aug

08

Sep

08

Oct

08

Nov

08

Dec

08

Jan

09

Feb

09

Month of the year

Un

its

pe

r m

on

th

0

50

100

150

200

250

Ra

infa

ll p

er

mo

nth

in

mm

per KL units

Rainfall

From the above table it is clear that:

c) The inverse correlation trend between rainfall and pumping units consumed in the

total pumping units consumed is also displayed in the Per/KL units consumed !!!.

This metric factors in the variation of demand across the months. The variation is

Total Electricity and Rainfall

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

Apr

il 08

May

08

June

08

July 0

8

Aug

08

Sep

08

Oct 0

8

Nov

08

Dec

08

Jan

09

Feb 0

9

Month of the year

Un

its

pe

r m

on

th

0

50

100

150

200

250

Ra

infa

ll p

er

mo

nth

in

mm Units of Electricity Consumed

Rainfall


27

between 0.55 units / KL to 1.35 units / KL. i.e. the per KL units

consumed is more than doubling during April / May.

d) However, the above is a result of aggregating volume discharges from

different borewells and aggregating the units of electricity consumed. Therefore

this correlation can be due to one of two reasons –

• Possibility 1: Rainfall is resulting in changing water tables which is resulting

in change in per/KL pumping costs. However this is strange given that a

given borewell installation has a fixed discharge pump working against a

constant head across the year. This needs further understanding of pump

behaviour vis-à-vis water tables. Does water table changes actually affect

pump discharge?

• Possibility 2: Since this is based on aggregate data and not on individual

borewells, during the non-rainy seasons the relative contributions of different

borewells is different. i.e. there is perhaps a greater reliance on a specific

borewell which is affecting the pattern of per KL costs.

The above needs further investigation and greater knowledge on the depth of each

of the borewells and the depth at which their pumps are hanging. The above

remain hypothesis and need to be verified. These borewells are old, the POA and

the estate office have clearly stated that they do not have reliable information on

their depth etc. Getting this information will need its own investigations.

III) Electricity consumed by individual borewell and its monthly variation

From the above table it is clear that:

a) The variation of pumping electricity consumed across the year for different

borewells are different.

b) A comparison between 8SP165 and 8SWP5329, the two highest contributing

borewells, shows that the variation in electricity consumed in the former is far

greater than the variation in electricity consumed in the latter. The former is

influencing the total electricity consumption curve significantly.

c) The above is of special relevance in the light of understanding Metric II above.

Electricity consumption for Borewells

0

1000

20003000

4000

50006000

7000

80009000

April

08

May

08

June

08

July

08

Aug

08

Sep

08

Oct 08 Nov 08 Dec

08

Jan 09 Feb 09

Month of Year

Un

its

of

Ele

ctr

icit

y

co

ns

um

ed

8SWP 5329

8SWP 5799

8SWP 6685

8SWP 6686

8SP 165

8SP 164

Totals


28

An overall perspective from the above three metrics vis-à-vis water supply and

its economics is:

a) Data of depths of borewells, depths at which pumps are installed and their

relationship with water table is critical to understand. Source metering of water is

critical for this. In general on the ground, such critical data is lost as in Rainbow

Drive. This data can help make more economic choices on water, understand

borewell behaviour and thereby maintenance and help in correlating investments

in recharge to borewell performance.

b) An understanding of local hydrogeology would contribute greatly to the above

analysis.

c) We also hope that this will lead to certain generic understandings that can help

make economic and ecological decisions of ground water and ground water

management independent of studies such as this conducted at every site.

Production cost of water

The production cost of water at Rainbow Drive was arrived at considering the complete

cycle of water i.e. right from pumping the water out from the borewells to treating

wastewater and disposing the wastewater. Calculating the production cost of water

requires the incorporation of all capital and running costs to the layout’s borewell, STP

and other water infrastructure. Biome has compiled every expense from 2006 to the

present, and processing these along with the consumption data to determine the cost of

each KL’s supply and disposal.

The full details of the calculation of production cost are available in the toolkit

“Calculating the production cost of water”, which will assist other communities in

assessing the ongoing performance of their own borewells.

The production cost calculated has been based on:

a) Actually incurred costs for under various headers during the study period. The

headers include Pumping costs,

b) Based on actual demand during the same period.

c) Projected costs for maintenance of Rainwater harvesting wells.

d) An allocation for a sinking fund towards capital recovery and water security costs.

Broadly the production cost is broken into two components:

1. Operations and Maintenance costs: This factors in costs incurred to actually

achieve the supply and distribution of water and treatment and disposal of waste

water. It includes pumping costs, cost of maintaining the infrastructure, costs

incurred in paying out STP (Sewage treatment Plant) operators, maintaining STP

infrastructure. It also includes projected costs for maintaining the POA’s

(collective) investment in Rainwater harvesting – essentially that of maintaining

wells. This also apportions salaries paid out to Estate management personnel

towards their efforts for water operations.


29

2. Sinking Fund: This is designed to factor in three critical aspects of water

management that will not be reflected in operating costs. They are –

• Infrastructure Capital cost recovery. In general this is achieved

by amortizing the capital costs of the infrastructure over its life time.

Inflation rate of interests can be assumed.

• Foreseen costs of new water resources development given the ground

water dependence (eg: drilling a new borewell). This is a strong function

of local hydrogeology, condition of existing borewells and expected

demand growth rates. However in principle it boils down to the cost of

digging new equally well yielding borewells amortized over a time period

which current borewells are expected to last before they stop yielding.

• A planned creation of a fund for sustainability investments such as

rainwater harvesting or waste water reuse.

The Production cost of water can then be used to arrive at a Tariff regime that factors all

the above and keeps creating a sinking fund that can readily be used by the POA as a

“water utility” for upkeep, investments and security measures for water.

When the above model was applied in the context of Rainbow Drive based on real costs

incurred, the results were as below :

The overall production cost is around 16.7 Rs / KL out of which 13.3 Rs / KL is purely

operations and maintenance costs.

In the above calculations for the sinking Fund :

a) Capital recovery costs are zero as the capital costs of infrastructure are not

amortized and reflected in the production cost. This is because at RBD people

preferred to not have this reflected – they have paid already for the capital costs

when they bought the plots. Any major infrastructure investment in existing

infrastructure would need an explicit fund raising exercise.

b) Fund for New water resources – represents a sinking fund necessary for drilling of

new borewells incase of drying up of existing borewells. It has been arrived at

assuming the two high yielding borewells at Rainbow Drive have a life of 2 years

and it costs around 1.5 Lakhs of Rupees to drill one new yielding borewell.

Current Average Monthly consumption 6455 KL / month Volume of imported water annually 0 KL / year

Total no of months of production cost 12 POA supply volume 6455 KL / month

3.700503 Rs / KL

0.979783 Rs / KL

6.901924 Rs / KL

0.258198 Rs / KL

0 Rs / KL

1.515105 Rs / KL 13.35551 Rs / KL

0 Rs / KL

2 Rs / KL

1 Rs / KL 3 Rs / KL

16.78856 Rs / KL

Fund for Water security investment

Capital recovery costs

RWH Maintenance

Avg cost of imported water

Fund for New Water resources

Operations and Maintenance costs

Capital Recovery and Water secutiry costs (Sinking

fund)

Total PER KL Cost

Per KL Production Cost of Water : Based on Total Average Current Monthly Consumption

Componentised Per KL Costs

Total

Overheads

Pumping Costs

Supply infrastructure maintenance

Waste Water treatment


30

c) Fund of Water security investment – represents a sinking fund necessary

for continued investments in recharge wells for the next two years at the

rate of 5 wells per year.

It must be observed from the above production cost that:

a) Wastewater treatment operations and maintenance is the single highest

contributor.

b) Pumping costs are very significant.

c) It is possible to reflect desired future investments for security/sustainability as a

part of the production cost of water, and, that this component is less than some of

the operations and maintenance components.

Performance of water pricing scheme

RBD’s water management cost recovery can be determined by running the total

production cost of water against the layout’s watsan income from monthly water bills.

This review also needs to take into account the reduction in revenue on account of

defaulted payments.

The period reviewed was April 2008 through March 2009. Over the course of that

period, the total production cost of water is Rs. 10,34,518/-. This figure accounts for the

costs of pumping, supply infrastructure maintenance, wastewater treatment, HR costs,

and community-level RWH maintenance.

The total billing during that same period was Rs. 12,79,515, which would cover the

production cost as well as build up some savings for the sinking fund. However, the

analysis below of four billing cycles during the April 08 – March 09 period reveals that

an average of 17.7% of bills are defaulted each month. It must be noted that the assistant

estate manager in charge of bill collection argues that all defaulters tend to pay within a

3-month period, so further analysis of every month’s billing is warranted.

Bill period Total billing Total recvd

Total

outstanding % default

Feb-March 2009 111716 93236 18480 0.16541946

Mar-April 2009 127792 96339 31453 0.24612652

June-July 2008 137893 118503 19390 0.14061627

Sept-Oct 2008 94363 80314 14049 0.14888251

TOTAL 471764 388392 83372 0.17672396

Even if an average default rate of 17.7% is assumed, the total revenue from April 2008 to

March 2009 was still Rs. 10,53,041/-, which is enough to cover the layout’s production

cost of water, though not sufficient to accumulate a sinking fund.


31

Pricing scheme performance under demand management conditions

One of the key lessons of the RBD monitoring exercise is the central role that

demand management must assume to achieve a more sustainable groundwater

balance. Should demand management practices take hold, then one needs to model the

performance of the pricing regime under different demand scenarios to determine its

financial viability.

A feature of the present pricing scheme is that lower end users are essentially cross-

subsidized by the higher end consumers, as reflected by the fact that the two lowest slabs

are lower than the production cost of water. A hypothesis that needs to be tested is that a

reduction in higher-end consumption will make the cross-subsidy financially unviable,

thereby requiring a price hike in the lower slabs to recover the production cost of water.

Two scenarios need to be tested. The first would consider a likely scenario of successful

demand management, wherein the high-consumption users in Slabs 4 and 5 reduce their

average demand to the layout average of 246 litres per capita per day (lpcd) while

demand amongst lower-consumption users remains the same. The second scenario would

consider a very successful demand management campaign that reduces the average

consumption to 135 lpcd.

One would expect in both of these scenarios that the drop in consumption amongst

higher-end consumers would require calls for a revision of tariff regimes to recover the

production cost of water even at the lowest slabs. However, in communities such as

RBD which are relatively economically homogeneous, the rationale for subsidizing lower

consumption on the grounds of providing “lifeline” water does not apply.

Staffing

A key learning of interviews with the staff members is that they possess good capacity to

conduct operations once they are well-defined. They had a very clear understanding of

the different water management changes that have been brought about by the POA’s

activity. The staff dooes not have a technical capacity in the sense that they are not aware

of the technical issues related to the STPs or borewells, and they don’t have an

understanding of how meter readings are to be interpreted.

This lack of technical understanding prevents the staff from being able to negotiate terms

with partner agencies providing technical services for STP or borewell

management/maintenance. Additionally, this knowledge gap precludes any proactive

measures by the staff to ideate on further improvements to the overall water management

regime. The knowledge gap also partly explains the lack of consistency in keeping

current with data collection for the rain gauge installed to track RBD’s total rainfall or to

respond when technical difficulties befell a source meter installed on one of the layout’s

borewells.


32

One thing that this monitoring exercise made clear is that human capital is at the

core of answering the question of how sustainable RBD’s water management

regime is, and to what extent the successes of RBD can be replicated elsewhere.

Efforts to build the staff’s capacities will benefit the layout’s water management, and

these must be driven by a dedicated POA.

Hydrogeology in the layout

Biome has gathered data for the purpose of developing a basic understanding of RBD’s

hydrogeology. Hydrogeological analysis ought to be crucial practice for strengthening

the water management framework at any layout entirely dependent upon groundwater,

and even more so when a groundwater recharge strategy is pursued. However, there are

few if any resources available to guide communities in conducting such an exercise, as

most hydrogeological surveys are focused on macro-level trends. Therefore, Biome

devised a set of activities in order to generate at the very least a rough sketch of the

character of RBD’s hydrogeology.

The aims of these exercises are two-fold: first, we would like to understand the

appropriateness of RBD’s groundwater recharge strategy given its underlying conditions;

second, we hope to identify the existence and nature of a shallow aquifer that could

potentially be tapped as an additional source of water for the layout’s needs in the future.

Use of shallow aquifer water could partially offset the water and pumping demand from

the borewells.

After discussing potential exercises with expert hydrogeologists, Biome has conducted

two surveys of all the layout’s open wells, three slug tests on selected wells, and water

quality tests on the yielding borewells and a selected open well across different seasons.

We have collated the complete results from the slug tests in Appendix 8, open well

surveys in Appendix 9, and water quality tests in Appendix 10, and will consult with

qualified experts to determine what insights or conclusions can be drawn from the same.

Below are some initial observations of the data.

Slug tests

According to interviews with more than a dozen residents of RBD, flood mitigation is

considered among the most tangible benefits of RBD’s groundwater recharge efforts.

Though 2008 had presented higher than average monsoon rainfall. One resident

commented about a neighbour whose basement had frequently flooded during heavy

rains, but which no longer does since several recharge wells on his street were sunk.

Due to the wells’ success as a flood control measure, a second set of 10 recharge wells

was built in November 2008. These ten new wells were sponsored at the collective level

by the RWA. Several privately funded wells were also dug over the course of the

monitoring exercise, and the layout’s well total today is 59.


33

Our modelling below has projected that given Bangalore’s rainfall patterns and

the recharge well capacity at RBD, the annual quantum of rainwater recharged

into the ground is 9.942 million litres.

Total RBD recharge estimate annually for an average rainfall pattern

Total no of recharge well holding volume 219 KL

Total number of recharge wells 55

No of recharge wells in drain 25 wells

No of recharge wells in compound 30 wells

Rainfall distribution assumption

days mm rain total Wells in the drain Wells in compound Wells indrain Wells in compound

1 80 80 4000 4000 120000 144000

2 60 120 4000 4000 240000 288000

3 30 90 4000 3000 360000 270000

4 25 100 4000 2500 480000 300000

8 20 160 4000 2000 960000 480000

42 10 420 4000 1000 5040000 1260000

7200000 2742000 9942000 Litres

or

9.942 Million litres

Per shower Entire Rainy season

To test the validity of this modelling as well as the hypothesis that RBD’s recharge wells

do effectively mitigate local flooding, we decided to conduct slug tests on four wells

spread geographically across the layout. A slug test is a basic exercise to gauge the

recharge capacity of a given open well by discharging a column of water or “slug” into

the well and observing the rate at which it percolates into the ground. The intent was to

conduct slug tests during the dry season, pre-monsoon season and rainy season to develop

an understanding of how the recharge rate functions under different seasonal conditions.

Two of the open wells were tested in each of the three target seasons, and two were tested

during the pre-monsoon and rainy seasons.

A cursory analysis suggests that RBD taken in its entirety is an effective recharge zone,

though the recharge rates vary considerably from location to location, with some wells

recharging rapidly and others significantly slower. However, to draw any final

conclusions from the data, a trained hydrogeologist’s perspective will be required.

Since standing water was witnessed in several of the test wells even during the dry

season, further investigation of RBD’s open wells is warranted to explore for the

presence of a shallow aquifer. A recommended course of action would be to conduct a

pumping test, whereby a well with a pre-existing column of water would be emptied by a

submersible pump and then observed for the time required for the water level to return, if

at all, to the original level. Knowledge of the recuperation rate of the wells would give

more solid evidence of the presence and nature of a shallow aquifer, and it would also

guide any future pumping regime to put shallow aquifer water to use.

Open well surveys

We conducted open well surveys during the pre-monsoon and rainy seasons to note the

presence or absence of water in 34 of the layout’s 59 open wells. The primary objective

of this exercise was to search for evidence of a shallow aquifer. After the two surveys,

we have tabulated the data and grouped them into three main catchment areas as per the

general south-north orientation of RBD’s topography. An initial reading of the data


34

suggests that there is a presence of a shallow aquifer, though as with the slug

tests, the analysis and inference regarding the extent to which it could be

deployed requires hydrogeological expertise.

Groundwater quality analysis

We twice sampled an open well that has been observed to yield water throughout the

year. If the water is to be put to any use, it must be safe for the purpose to which it will

be applied. The first sample was taken in February 2009, in the midst of the dry season,

and the second sample was taken in the early weeks of the rainy season in August 2009.

In both cases, the water’s appearance was clear, and the February report suggested that

subject to a bacteriological examination, the water was of potable quality. Moreover,

each of the parameters tested in August were, as expected, lower relative to the February

sample as a result of the recent rainfall.

These samples suggest that the shallow aquifer water in RBD is of high quality and

should certainly be considered for application in the households upon a more

comprehensive understanding of the recharge rates.

We also sampled water from the borewells supplying the water for all of RBD in January

and August 2009 two observe for any seasonal variation in groundwater quality. One

sample tested the water supplied by two borewells that is delivered to all homes in Phases

1 and 2 located in the northern half of the layout, while the other sample was taken from

the borewell supplying all of Phases 3 and 4. In both instances, the water from Phases 1

and 2 was harder than the water from Phases 3 and 4.

Regarding the two samples from Phases 1 and 2, the measure of Total Dissolved Solids

(TDS) rose from 480 mg/L in January to 571 mg/L, which is higher than the desirable

limit of 500 mg/L set by the BIS 105000 drinking water specification, but still well

within the permissible limit of 2000 mg/L. Additionally, the readings for Chloride and

Nitrate increased slightly from January to August. The other parameters tested either

stabilised or fell slightly between January and August.

Regarding the two samples from Phases 3 and 4, one finding of note was that while the

measure of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) increased, nearly every other parameter tested

in August was equal to or lower than the January sample, including total hardness.

Since the samples were sent to different labs in January and August, testing error may

account for some of the variation noticed between months. The extent of testing error

and any additional significance to be assigned to these samples would call for the inputs

of a water quality expert.

Following the August sample, Biome’s attempt has been to embed this practice within the

POA, as water quality testing of one’s groundwater supply is recommended once every

six months.


35

Pt. 5 – RBD’s wastewater management analysis

Wastewater management analysis

The Rainbow Drive layout has two STPs – one for Phases 1 and 2, and another for Phases

3 and 4. Interviews with residents, Managing Committee members and staff indicate that

there is very little understanding of how the STP’s operate or what happens to the

wastewater after treatment. This dearth of awareness was striking, if not surprising,

because understanding RBD’s wastewater management system is crucial for several

reasons:

1. Nearly 50% of the production costs of water is contributed to by the operations of

the STP at Rainbow Drive.

2. As the analysis of RBD’s demand has shown above, wastewater treatment is a

very critical component of its overall water management, and the question of how

to deal with treated wastewater remains an open question for the layout.

An STP consultant with 30 years of experience in the field was brought to RBD for the

purpose of analyzing RBD’s STP management regime, and samples of raw and treated

sewage from each of the STP’s were submitted for testing. The expert’s opinion had

deemed the STP’s to be gravely inadequate both in terms of infrastructure, staff capacity

and discharge of treated wastewater.

Insufficient facilities

Each STP exhibits deficient designs that made for greater difficulty of operation. No

dimensions or drawings of the plant were available, and therefore there is no way of

knowing the basis of each STP design and to calculate how much wastewater each STP is

capable of treating per hour & per day. Knowing the maximum capacity of each STP is

is especially important to know when there are 140 plots yet to be developed. The

consultant’s recommendation was to demolish the existing STPs and revamp the entire

infrastructure.

Personnel

The STP maintenance and operations are outsourced to a third party agency which is paid

for on a monthly basis. This agency’s exact functions are unknown to most staff and

Managing Committee members. The estate management team was unaware of capacities

or any other technical specifications of the STP. The operators from the third party

agency were carrying out the operations in a rote manner without an idea of what the

results of their actions should be. There appeared to be no Operation Manual for either of

the plants.

Disposal of treated wastewater

Treated wastewater disposal is problematic for the layout. Some of the treated

wastewater is used for gardening purposes in the layout’s clubhouse area, though much of

it is discharged into stormwater drains and neighboring sites. The storm water drain of


36

the main road outside RBD’s entrance is at a higher level than the layout, and

this water occasionally backs up in part due to neighboring layouts’ similar

methods of wastewater disposal.

The quality of the treated wastewater is also problematic. Samples of the treated sewage

taken by Biome and submitted to Ion Exchange laboratory for a full examination have

shown it to fail KSPCB standards for wastewater. The consultant referred to it as a

“sewage in, sewage out system”, whose quality is not fit for sustained use on lawns and

gardens due to the likely presence of pathogenic bacteria that will eventually effect the

groundwater quality.

Each month, the third party STP agency submits treated wastewater samples to an

independent laboratory for testing. No sample has failed the lab’s standards to date,

though there are some concerns about this. For one, they do not test for nitrate, which is

a critical parameter of wastewater testing. Additionally, they use KSPCB’s old limits as

their benchmark for treated sewage quality, which are decidedly less rigorous than

present-day standards. Indeed, if they used present day KSPCB standards, both of the

STP agency’s samples reviewed would have failed the test for Total Suspended Solids.

More importantly, the STP agency’s test results stand in marked contrast to those taken

by Biome. Each of the STP agency’s test show samples to be within the limits for BOD,

whereas Biome’s samples fail the BOD test.

The STP consultant commented that his prior employer had used to send samples of its

wastewater to independent laboratories, and found it was possible to get some labs to

manipulate results to its liking. Of course, it cannot be assumed that this is the case at

RBD, but what can be assumed is that there appears to be a potential conflict of interest

involved with STP operators submitting tests to labs from which they desires positive

results.

Progress during the Monitoring period

From the beginning of Biome’s engagement with Rainbow Drive and during the

monitoring period, Biome has been consistently talking with the POA about the

importance of good waste water management. Mr Jayawanth Bhardwaj, the key driver of

reforms in the layout, has also been internally driving a similar agenda. As stated above,

as a part of the monitoring exercise an independent consultant provided an opinion which

was unequivocally critical of the existing set up. Subsequent to this, equipped with the

ecological framework for water management and the scenario playing based on that

(Refer to Chapter on demand), a meeting with the entire Plot owners Association was

conducted.

In this meeting an idea was proposed: If waste water is treated to rechargeable qualitites

and recharged, the layout would have nearly a zero ground water overdraft. This got the

POA thinking and added elbow to Mr Jayawanth’s internal efforts. This led to a dialogue

on the possibilities of implementing a new Sewage Treatment plant based on Soil Bio

Technology. A dialogue was conducted with Professor Shankar, of Vision Earth Care

Pvt Ltd – the pioneer in soil bio technology (SBT). This was chosen on the


37

recommendation of Biome as the claim was that it would treat waste water to

potable quality standards. Prof Shankar was flown down to Bangalore (by the

POA) and the POA, Biome and VEC were all involved in a meeting to discuss

the possibilities of deploying SBT. The dialogue for SBT is still ongoing – however

immediate deployment has been postponed due to cost reasons (it was estimated that an

SBT plant for the layout would cost around Rs 50 Lakh). However this entire dialogue

has brought to focus the importance of waste water management and the POA’s thought

processes around it has gained momentum. The POA is currently implementing major

maintenance works on the STP for an immediate lower capital cost solution to ensure the

treatment quality meets atleast the current pollution control norms. The dialogue for a

longer term improvement in waste water management continues to play itself out in the

POA meetings.


38

Appendix 1: Links to media articles about Rainbow Drive Layout (Note: some links may be de-activated. If you wish for a soft copy for any of

the articles, please contact Nate Stell at [email protected] for the same.)

a) Published in Citizen Matters – an online news platform that also facilitates citizen

journalism (http://bangalore.citizenmatters.in/ )

Water supply from the bottom up

RWH in a layout: getting started

RWH in a layout: engaging the people

RWH in a layout: What, how, why and how much

RWH in a layout: Residents are water managers

b) Published in the Times of India, 20 October 2008, Bangalore Edition.

Drops of Hope

c) Published in the Livemint (The Wall Street Journal), 14 November 2008,

Water Water

d) Published in The Hindu (Supplement : Property Plus), 29 November 2008,

Bangalore Edition.

Managing water in a Layout

e) Published in Time Out Bengaluru, 22 January 2009,

Water idea, Sirji

f) Published in Bangalore Mirror, 16 February 2009,

Water at the end of the Rainbow

g) Published in Mid-Day.com, 12 September, 2008,

Saved by the well

h) Published in DNA, 7 June 2009,

Who owns Bangalore’s rainwater?


39

Appendix 2: Demand Metrics

Feb-M ar 08 M ar-Apr 08 Apr-M ay 08 M ay-Jun 08 Jun - July 08 July-Aug 08 Aug-Sep 08 Sep-Oct 08 Oct-Nov 08 Nov-Dec 08 Dec-Jan 09 Jan-Feb 09

5865 5266 7117 5512 5333 5901 6485 5405 5790 6546 5976 6165

271 238 321 238 222 241 256 219 225 258 237 238

31.4 29.5 38.5 29.5 26.6 29.9 31.7 31.7 27.9 30.9 29.3 29.5

187 179 185 187 201 198 205 205 208 212 204 209Total no of households corresponding to this consumption

20092008

Total M onthly consumption

Avg per capita consumption

Average household monthly consumption

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Feb-M

ar 0

8

Mar

-Apr

08

Apr

-May

08

May

-Jun

08

Jun

- Ju

ly 0

8

July-A

ug 0

8

Aug

-Sep

08

Sep

-Oct 0

8

Oct

-Nov

08

Nov

-Dec

08

Dec

-Jan

09

Jan-

Feb 0

9

To

tal co

nsu

mp

tio

n K

L

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Per

cap

ita c

on

su

mp

tio

n K

L

Total Monthly consum ption

Avg per capita consum ption

Average household m onthly consum ption

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Feb-Mar 08

Mar-A

pr 08

Apr-M

ay 08

May

-Jun

08

Jun - J

uly 08

July-A

ug 08

Aug-S

ep 08

Sep-O

ct 08

Oct-N

ov 08

Nov

-Dec

08

Dec

-Jan

09

Jan-Fe

b 09

M onths

consum

ption K

L

Average household m onthly

consum ption


40

Appendix 3: Demand Distribution

Consumption slab No of households Consumption 1 Consumption 2 %

Slab 1 (0-10KL) 9 0 10 4

Slab 2 (10-20KL) 52 10 20 24

Slab 3 (20-30KL) 71 20 30 32

Slab 4 (30-40KL) 50 30 40 23

Slab 5 (>40 KL) 37 40 100 17

Total 219 100

32 Households

130 Households

89 Households

No of households upto around 135 litre per capita (1st two slabs)

No of households upto 246 lpcd (Average of layout)

No of households greater than 246 lpcd (Average of layout)

Demand distribution of households

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Slab 1 (0-

10KL)

Slab 2 (10-

20KL)

Slab 3 (20-

30KL)

Slab 4 (30-

40KL)

Slab 5 (>40

KL)

Consumption slabs

No

of

ho

us

eh

old

s

No of households

135 Lpcd 246 Lpcd

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Slab 1 (0-

10KL)

Slab 2 (10-

20KL)

Slab 3 (20-

30KL)

Slab 4 (30-

40KL)

Slab 5 (>40

KL)

Plot <1000 sqft

Plot bet 1000 & 2000 sqft



Greater than 4000 sqft


41

Appendix 4:

Household demand analysis questionnaire

Users • How many people live/work in the home?

o Breakup – kids, adults, staff

! Do staff live in the home?

! What age group are the kids?

• Within the family, who spends the most time in the house?

• How often do staff come (maid, gardener, driver)?

o What times?

o What do they do while here? Usage points

• Bathroom

o Toilet

! How many toilets in the home?

! What kind of toilets?

• Pour or flush?

• Dual flush toilet?

• Note the model and if capable of part/full flush.

! How many people use each particular toilet?

! Do people practice part flush/full flush?

! (Put a tally sheet in the toilet to be kept for 3 days)

• (Stick a note card on the flush itself to remind users to

make the tally.)

o Shower

! How often to residents take showers?

! Do residents use bucket baths or shower baths?

• (What’s the volume of the bucket?)

• (If a shower bath, measure the time it takes to fill a vessel

of known volume to determine the flow rate.)

! (Provide a tally sheet.)

• How many buckets used for each bucket shower.

• Length of time for shower bath.

! Alternative to tallying shower use (this might be easier and just as

reliable)

• For bucket showers, how many buckets used for each bath?

• For shower bath, how long for each bath?

o Wash basin

! (Open the tap and fill a mug of known volume, noting the time it

takes to fill the mug to determine the flow rate. )

• Kitchen

o Kitchen tap & wash basins

! (Open the tap and fill a vessel of known volume, noting the time it

takes to fill to determine the flow rate.)


42

o Is there a mechanical dishwasher?

! How many loads a day?

! How much water does each load use? (Look at the

manuals or get the model and make of the machine and look up on

the web.)

o Hand dishwash / kitchen sink

! Does the bulk of dishwashing happen in the utility area or in the

kitchen sink?

! How many times a day are dishes done?

! What type of a tap in the kitchen sink?

• (Open the tap and fill a mug of known volume, noting the

time it takes to fill the mug to determine the flow rate.)

! When washing dishes, does the maid use a bucket or use a running

tap only?

• Usually a mix of the bucket use and the tap.

• Get an idea of the bucket size.

! We’ll approximate cooking and drinking based on the # of ppl

there.

• Utility area

o Is a washing machine used for clothes?

! How many loads a day?

! How much water does each load use? (Look at the manuals or get

the model and make of the machine and look up on the web.)

o Bucket washing for clothes?

! Are all or some clothes/garments bucket washed?

! How many loads a day/week are bucket washed?

! How many buckets are used per load?

! (Take the measurements of the bucket to determine the volume.)

o How often is home swabbed/mopped?

! How many buckets used for this activity?

o Are there any other regular indoor cleaning activities not mentioned here?

! How many buckets used for this activity in a week?

• Garden

o (Observe the garden, click snaps.)

o Is there a gardener? What time does s/he come? How often? Does s/he

have a mobile so that we may contact them directly sometime?

o What days and times is the garden watered?

o How long does it take to water the garden?

o Is a bucket or hose used?

! If bucket, how many buckets are used.

• (Get the measurements of the bucket)

! (If a hose is used, determine the time it takes for hose to fill a

vessel of known volume.)

• Car park

o Is the driveway washed?

! How many times a week?


43

! Bucket wash or hose?

• If bucket, how many buckets are used?

o (Volume of bucket used?)

• (If hose, determine the time it takes for hose to fill a vessel

of known volume.)

o Car wash

! How many cars?

! How often are they washed in a week?

! Bucket wash or hose?

• If bucket, how many buckets are used?

o (Volume of bucket used?)

• (If hose, determine the time it takes for hose to fill a vessel

of known volume.)


44

Appendix 5: RO Survey Analysis

RO Survey Analysis

Total houses 84

Without RO 38

With RO 46

Brands

Aquaguard 21

Eureka 3

Forbes 1

Kent 10

Ena Kofer? 1

Nature fre? 1

Zero B 6

Brand not mentioned 3

Total 46

Uses

Drinking 5

Cooking 1

Both 40

Total 46

Amount of wastewater (litres)

Litres No. of houses Percentage

0-5 6 12.77

6-10 13 27.66

11-15 4 8.51

16-20 5 10.64


45

21-25 3 6.38

26-30 3 6.38

31-40 2 4.26

Over 40 2 4.26

No response 9 19.15

Total 47 100

How the wastewater is used

Car wash 1

Floor 1

Gardening 15

Vessels 1

Waste 22

Total 40

Litres

Average wastewater per household 21.27

Average wastewater in households that do not reuse 18.61

Average wastewater in households that reuse the water 23.79

Number of people per house

No of people Houses

2 3

3 9

4 19

5 11

6 2


46

12 1

Total 45

Average number of people per house 4.18

Other household treatment (collated largely from houses

without RO systems)

Aquaguard 22

Electricity free filter 1

UV filter 2

Water softener 5

Water softener with magnetic treatment 1

Other observations

Houses using only mineral water 9


47

Appendix 6: Data for Borewells and Pumping

Pumping and Release Schedule of Water at RBD Pumping Schedule

Phase 1 and 2 (2 borewells) Phase 3 and 4 (1 borewell)

Pump Name Pumping Time / duration Pumping Time / duration

Mon 1st pump 9:00 AM – 4:00 PM 10:00 AM – 10:00 PM

Mon 2nd

pump 5:30 PM – 10:30 PM

Tues 1st pump 9:00 AM – 4:00 PM 10:00 AM – 1:00 PM

Tues 2nd

pump 5:30 PM – 10:30 PM

Wed 1st pump 9:00 AM – 4:00 PM 10:00 AM – 10:00 PM

Wed 2nd

pump 5:30 PM – 10:30 PM

Thurs 1st pump 9:00 AM – 4:00 PM 10:00 AM – 1:00 PM

Thurs 2nd

pump 5:30 PM – 10:30 PM

Fri 1st pump 9:00 AM – 4:00 PM 10:00 AM – 10:00 PM

Fri 2nd

pump 5:30 PM – 10:30 PM

Sat 1st pump 9:00 AM – 4:00 PM 10:00 AM – 1:00 PM

Sat 2nd

pump 5:30 PM – 10:30 PM

Sun 1st pump 9:00 AM – 4:00 PM 10:00 AM – 1:00 PM

Sun 2nd

pump 5:30 PM – 10:30 PM

Water Release Schedule

Water Release schedule Phase 1 and 2 Phase 3 and 4

Mon 1st release 8:30 AM – 10:00 AM 8:30 AM – 10:00 AM

Mon 2nd

release 5:00 PM – 7:00 PM 5:00 PM – 7:00 PM

Tues 1st release 8:30 AM – 10:00 AM 8:30 AM – 9:30 AM

Tues 2nd

release 5:00 PM – 7:00 PM

Wed 1st release 8:30 AM – 10:00 AM 8:30 AM – 9:30 AM

Wed 2nd


Thurs 1st release 8:30 AM – 10:00 AM 8:30 AM – 9:30 AM

Thurs 2nd


Fri 1st release 8:30 AM – 10:00 AM 8:30 AM – 9:30 AM

Fri 2nd


Sat 1st release 8:30 AM – 10:00 AM 8:30 AM – 9:30 AM

Sat 2nd


Sun 1st release 8:30 AM – 10:00 AM 8:30 AM – 9:30 AM

Sun 2nd


In the above the reference to 1st and 2nd pump are as follows

Phase 1 and 2: 8SP165 – Opposite - Plot 137

8SP6686 – Opposite – Plot 170

Phase 3 and 4: 8SWP5329 – between plots 244 and 245


48

Appendix 7: Tabulation of borewell pumping electricity consumed at RBD

Borewell No Borewell depth Borewell HP April 08 M ay 08 June 08 July 08 Aug 08 Sep 08 Oct 08 Nov 08 Dec 08 Jan 09 Feb 09 Totals

8SWP 5329 7.5 2842 2444 2036 2025 2121 1951 1476 1421 1226 1560 1725 20827

8SWP 5799 5 889 1054 679 584 712 65 877 0 0 0 0 4860

8SWP 6685 5 684 712 322 233 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1951

8SWP 6686 5 363 460 227 330 399 427 460 146 302 598 687 4399

8SP 165 5 3613 3814 1729 1331 3062 2097 1096 2956 2595 1473 926 24692

8SP 164 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

32.5 8391 8484 4993 4503 6294 4540 3909 4523 4123 3631 3338 56729

46 119 80 110 137 195 180 64.5 22 2.7 7.2

demand 6191.5 6314.5 5422.5 5617 6193 5945 5597.5 6168 6261 6070.5 6015

per KL units 1.355245094 1.343574313 0.920792992 0.8016735 1.0163087 0.7636669 0.6983475 0.7333009 0.658521 0.598139 0.554946

Totals

Rainfall

Units of Electricity ConsumedBorewell details

Feb-Mar 08 Mar-Apr 08 Apr-May 08 May-Jun 08 Jun - July 08 July-Aug 08 Aug-Sep 08 Sep-Oct 08 Oct-Nov 08 Nov-Dec 08 Dec-Jan 09 Jan-Feb 09

5865 5266 7117 5512 5333 5901 6485 5405 5790 6546 5976 6165

Demand Across the year


49

Appendix 8: Results from slug tests on select RBD recharge wells

Day of

reading

(Saturday or

Sunday)

Time of

Reading

Depth of

water from

ground level

Water present

before slug?

Day of

reading

(Sunday or

Monday)

Time of

Reading

Depth of

water from

ground level

(feet)

Water present

before slug?

Day of reading

(Saturday or Sunday)

Time of

Reading

Depth of

water from

ground level

Water present

before slug?

28/Jan 10:58 0' No 24/May 12:28 0' Yes, at 17' 6" 11/Sep 12:55 2' 4" No

28/Jan 11:02 10" 24/May 13:28 4' 6" 11/Sep 13:10 3' 9"

28/Jan 11:05 1' 5.5" 24/May 14:28 8' 3" 11/Sep 13:25 5'

28/Jan 11:10 2' 1" 24/May 15:28 10' 2" 11/Sep 14:25 7'

28/Jan 11:15 2' 8.5" 24/May 16:28 11' 6" 11/Sep 15:25 9'

28/Jan 11:25 3' 3.5" 24/May 17:28 13' 11/Sep 16:25 11' 6"

28/Jan 11:30 3' 7" 25/May 10:00 17' 11/Sep 17:25 13' 8"

28/Jan 11:45 4' 9"

28/Jan 12:00 5' 11"

28/Jan 12:30 7' 7'

28/Jan 13:00 8' 5"

28/Jan 13:30 9' 5"

28/Jan 14:00 10' 1"

28/Jan 15:00 11' 3"

28/Jan 16:00 12' 2"

28/Jan 17:00 12' 9"

29/Jan 18:00 13' 4"

29/Jan 9:15 16' 6"

29/Jan 12:45 16' 10"

29/Jan 14:25 16' 11"

29/Jan 17:15 17' 1"

30/Jan 8:30 Empty

Jan-09 May-09 Sep-09

Plot 13 well slug tests

(17' deep well)


50

Date of

Reading

Time of

Reading

Depth of

water from

top of well

Water present

before slug?

Day of

reading

(Sunday or

Monday

Time of

Reading

Depth of

water from

ground level

(feet)

Water present

before slug?

Day of

reading

(Sunday or

Monday

Time of

Reading

Depth of

water from

ground level

(feet)

Water present

before slug?

29/Jan 11:18 6' 4" Yes, at 24' 11" 24/May 11:30 0' Yes, at 18' 12/Sep 15:35 1' Yes, at 24'

29/Jan 11:36 6' 9" 24/May 12:30 6" 12/Sep 16:35 1' 9"

29/Jan 12:06 7' 24/May 13:30 1' 12/Sep 17:35 2' 5"

29/Jan 12:37 7' 3" 24/May 14:30 1'

29/Jan 12:56 7' 4" 24/May 15:30 1'

29/Jan 13:15 7' 5" 24/May 16:30 1' 6"

29/Jan 13:45 7' 6.5" 25/May 10:00 6' 3"

29/Jan 14:15 7' 8"

29/Jan 15:15 7' 11"

29/Jan 17:30 8' 4"

30/Jan 8:30 11' 1"

30/Jan 13:50 11' 6"

31/Jan 15:00 14'

Jan-09 May-09 Sep-09


(27' deep well)


51

Day of

reading

(Saturday or

Sunday)

Time of

Reading

Depth of

water from

ground level

Water present

before slug?

Day of

reading

(Sunday or

Monday)

Time of

Reading

Depth of

water from

ground level

(feet)

Water

present

before slug?

24/May 13:10 0' Yes, at 16' 6" 11/Sep 13:25 1' 7" No

24/May 13:20 2' 6" 11/Sep 13:40 2' 2"

24/May 13:30 3' 6" 11/Sep 13:55 2' 7"

24/May 13:40 4' 6" 11/Sep 14:25 3'

24/May 13:50 6' 4" 11/Sep 15:25 3' 8"

25/May 10:00 7' 6" 11/Sep 16:25 4' 10"

11/Sep 17:25 5' 6"

May-09 Sep-09


(16' deep well)


52

Day of

reading

(Saturday or

Sunday)

Time of

Reading

Depth of

water from

ground level

Water present

before slug?

Day of

reading

(Saturday or

Sunday)

Time of

Reading

Depth of

water from

ground level

Water

present

before slug?

24/May 11:50 4" Yes, at 13' 6" 11/Sep 12:40 1'3" No

24/May 12:05 8" 11/Sep 12:55 1' 10"

24/May 12:20 1' 11/Sep 13:20 2' 10"

24/May 13:00 1' 6" 11/Sep 13:50 4' 5"

24/May 14:00 3' 6" 11/Sep 14:50 6' 6"

24/May 15:00 6' 6" 11/Sep 15:50 8'

24/May 16:00 9' 4" 11/Sep 16:50 9' 10"

24/May 17:00 12'

24/May 18:00 15' 6"

25/May 10:00 15' 6"

May-09 Sep-09


(17' deep well)


53

Appendix 9:

Location

(plot #) Catchment Well depth

Water level:

distance from

ground level (ft) Well depth

Water level:

distance from

ground level (ft)

284 (Stormdrain)1 17' 10” 12' 17' 15'

302/303 1 14' 8” 13' 8” 11' 8" 10' 11"

310 1 6' 8” 3' 6” 6' 3"

311 (Stormdrain)1 18' 17' 6” 16' 8" Empty

315 1 17' 6” 15' 4” 17' 14' 11"

320 1 7' 6” 5' Empty

326 1 20' 3' 19' 4" 19'

329 (Stormdrain)1 18' 17' 6” 16' 5" 16'

335 1 8' 8' 6'

359 1 19' 5” 19' 18'

371 (Stormdrain)1 18' 17' 17' 16' 8"

398 corner (Stormdrain)1 19' 2” 18' Empty

89 2 20' 17' 17' 13' 10"

93 (Stormdrain) 2 19' 18' 6” 17' 16'

247 (Stormdrain)2 19' 18' 17' 10"

248 2 17' 5” 12' 16' 12' 6"

250 (Stormdrain)2 28' 9' 27' 5" 23' 8"

424 2 20' 16' 18' 8" Empty

426 (Stormdrain)2 19' 15' 16' 9" Empty

7 (Stormdrain) 3 19' 18' 19' 18'

9 3 23' 6” 22' 6” 22' 21'

13 3 19' 18' 17' 3" 16' 10"

35 (Stormdrain) 3 19' 17' 17' 12' 10"

36 (Stormdrain) 3 19' 17' 6” 17' 3" Empty

42 3 10' 10' 9"

54 3 20' 17' 18' 16' 3"

58 (Stormdrain) 3 19' 16' 14' 8"

64/65 3 20' 15' 17' 9" Empty

68/1 3 20' 18' 17' 4" Empty

78 (Stormdrain) 3 19' 6” 16' 6” 16' 10" Empty

80 3 19' 5” 17' 5” 18' 9' 6"

81 3 19' 6” 16' 6” 18' 17'

99/1 (Stormdrain)3 19' 3” 18' 7” 17' 5" 12' 6"

107 3 19' 6” 18' 6" 17'

May 24 & 25, 2009 Sept 12 & 13, 2009

Open well test log - compiled findings


54


55

Appendix 10: Water quality tests for select RBD open well and yielding

borewells

Test 1 for open well at Plot 250 (Feb 2009)


56

Test 2 for open well at Plot 250 (Aug 2009)

Sampling method: --- NOT APPLICABLE

Sample received on: 13.08.09

Sample Description: COLOURLESS AND CLEAR

Test starts date: 17.08.09

Sample Quantity: 1 LIT

Test completed on: 19.08.09

END OF REPORT

S.NO

TEST PARAMETER

UNITS

RESULT

PROTOCOL

1

2

3

4

5

TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS

NITRATE

TOTAL HARDNESS

FLUORIDE

CALCIUM

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

232

3.3

125.7

< 1.0

36.6


57

Test 1 for Phase 1 & 2 borewell (Jan 2009)


58

Test 2 for Phase 1 & 2 borewell (Aug 2009)

S.NO

TEST PARAMETER

UNITS

RESULT

DESIRABLE LIMIT

(As per IS 10500

Drinking water

Specification)

PROTOCOL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

pH AT 25°

TURBIDITY

COLOUR

TOTAL HARDNESS (As CaCO3)

CALCIUM (As Ca)

MAGNESIUM (As Mg)

TOTAL ALKALINITY (As CaCO3 )

CHLORIDE (As Cl )

SULPHATE (As SO4)

RESIDUAL CHLORINE (As Cl)

NITRATE (As NO3)

IRON (As Fe)

COPPER (As Cu)

MANGANESE (As Mn)


FLUORIDE (As F)

CHROMIUM (As Cr6+

)

-

NTU

Hz. Unit

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

Mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

7.03

<1

<5

262.9

77.7

16.7

212.9

117.7

34.1

< 1

28.5

0.09

< 0.05

< 0.1

571

< 1.0

< 0.05

6.5-8.5

5

5

300

75

30

200

250

200

0.2

45

0.3

0.05

0.1

500

1.0

0.05

IS 3025 (p 11), 1983, R 2002

IS 3025 (p 10), 1984, R 2002

APHA 21ST

EDITION

IS 3025 (p 21), 1983, R 2002

IS 3025 (p 40), 1991, R 2003

IS 3025 (p 46), 1994, R 2003

IS 3025 (p 23), 1986, R 2003

IS 3025 (p 32), 1988, R 2003

IS 3025 (p 24), 1986, R 2003

IS 3025 (p 26), 1986, R 2003

IS 3025 (p 34), 1988, R 2003

IS 3025 (P 53), 2003

IS 3025 (p 42), 1992, R 2003

IS 3025 (p 59), 2006

IS 3025 (p 15), 1984, R 2003

APHA 21ST

EDITION

IS 3025 (p 52), 2003


59

Test 1 for Phase 3 & 4 borewell (Jan 2009)


60

Test 2 for Phase 3 & 4 borewell (Aug 2009)

S.NO

TEST PARAMETER

UNITS

RESULT

DESIRABLE LIMIT

(As per IS 10500

Drinking water

Specification)

PROTOCOL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

pH AT 25°

TURBIDITY

COLOUR

TOTAL HARDNESS (As CaCO3)

CALCIUM (As Ca)

MAGNESIUM (As Mg)

TOTAL ALKALINITY (As CaCO3 )

CHLORIDE (As Cl )

SULPHATE (As SO4)

RESIDUAL CHLORINE (As Cl)

NITRATE (As NO3)

IRON (As Fe)

COPPER (As Cu)

MANGANESE (As Mn)


FLUORIDE (As F)

CHROMIUM (As Cr6+

)

-

NTU

Hz. Unit

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

Mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

7.3

< 1

< 5

205.7

57.9

14.8

232.3

65.4

28.1

< 1

14.0

0.07

< 0.05

< 0.1

485

< 1.0

< 0.05

6.5-8.5

5

5

300

75

30

200

250

200

0.2

45

0.3

0.05

0.1

500

1.0

0.05

IS 3025 (p 11), 1983, R 2002

IS 3025 (p 10), 1984, R 2002

APHA 21ST

EDITION

IS 3025 (p 21), 1983, R 2002

IS 3025 (p 40), 1991, R 2003

IS 3025 (p 46), 1994, R 2003

IS 3025 (p 23), 1986, R 2003

IS 3025 (p 32), 1988, R 2003

IS 3025 (p 24), 1986, R 2003

IS 3025 (p 26), 1986, R 2003

IS 3025 (p 34), 1988, R 2003

IS 3025 (P 53), 2003

IS 3025 (p 42), 1992, R 2003

IS 3025 (p 59), 2006

IS 3025 (p 15), 1984, R 2003

APHA 21ST

EDITION

IS 3025 (p 52), 2003

Documents

When pigs fly: Citizens at the centre of integrated urban water … · 2013-04-12 · Citizens at the Centre of Integrated Urban Water Management 4 household demand revealed that